Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
187 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Speaking of radiocarbon dating rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stuart
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
Not that anybody was, but since carbon-14 levels are influenced by gamma rays:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112767522/black-hole-gam...

As a creationist, for whom carbon-14 levels are an absolute bane, I can't help wondering if other massive gamma ray bursts have taken place and been left unrecorded, as the article states,

“The challenge now is to establish how rare such carbon-14 spikes are, i.e. how often such radiation bursts hit the Earth.”
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Surely we can just look for the frequency of green skinned monsters in the fossil record.
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They would be recorded...in the fossil record. So we would see the spikes, just like this one has been seen.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
It's a sair fecht fur a hauf loaf.
badge
Furry boots?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gamesterinns wrote:
Not that anybody was, but since carbon-14 levels are influenced by gamma rays:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112767522/black-hole-gam...

As a creationist, for whom carbon-14 levels are an absolute bane, I can't help wondering if other massive gamma ray bursts have taken place and been left unrecorded, as the article states,

“The challenge now is to establish how rare such carbon-14 spikes are, i.e. how often such radiation bursts hit the Earth.”


As there are a multitude of other isotopes used in radioactive dating which would not be affected by this process and which all indicate a multi-billion year old Earth, this news does not help your position in any way.
34 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gamesterinns wrote:
As a creationist, for whom carbon-14 levels are an absolute bane, I can't help wondering if other massive gamma ray bursts have taken place and been left unrecorded, as the article states,

The variation in C-14 is accounted for in the standard calibration curves used in radiocarbon dating.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blorb Plorbst
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
I think we're all bozos on this bus.
Avatar
mbmbmb
gamesterinns wrote:
...As a creationist, ...


aaaaand I've stopped caring about what you say.
28 
 Thumb up
0.27
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Surely we can just look for the frequency of green skinned monsters in the fossil record.


Call Dr.Banner a monster to his face and you'll make him angry... you won't like him when he's angry.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Surely we can just look for the frequency of green skinned monsters in the fossil record.


Call Dr.Banner a monster to his face and you'll make him angry... you won't like him when he's angry.


Confusing Banner with the Hulk won't end too well either, as many of my Mutants & Masterminds (2nd Edition) players will tell you
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gamesterinns wrote:
As a creationist, for whom carbon-14 levels are an absolute bane, I can't help wondering if other massive gamma ray bursts have taken place and been left unrecorded, as the article states,

“The challenge now is to establish how rare such carbon-14 spikes are, i.e. how often such radiation bursts hit the Earth.”


Holy "I'm reading this to mean what I want it to mean" Theology Man!

See, you skip the first part of the quote. The one that says the issue isn't the age of the earth or radiocarbon dating, but the potential danger to electronic equipment:

Literally the first part of the paragraph you quoted from wrote:
“But even thousands of light years away, a similar event today could cause havoc with the sensitive electronic systems that advanced societies have come to depend on,”


Further - please point to any statement in the article that casts any doubt whatsoever on the use of radiocarbon dating itself - it's a description of why there's record of the burst in tree ring data. There's nothing that says "everything that you could test using carbon-14 is affected."

I'm not a scientist and the leaps of logic inherent in your conclusions are so massive that Evel Knievel is contemplating a comeback to reclaim his title.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carbon-14 isn't reliable for anything older than 10,000 years. For anything claimed older they use Uranium-Lead or some other slower decay isotope.

Carbon-14 has never been a problem for creationists that believe in a 6-10,000 year old earth.

Uranium-Lead has other issues that they can point to like, what was the starting ratio of Uranium-Lead when the rock was formed?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
It's a sair fecht fur a hauf loaf.
badge
Furry boots?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Carbon-14 isn't reliable for anything older than 10,000 years. For anything claimed older they use Uranium-Lead or some other slower decay isotope.

Carbon-14 has never been a problem for creationists that believe in a 6-10,000 year old earth.

Uranium-Lead has other issues that they can point to like, what was the starting ratio of Uranium-Lead when the rock was formed?


Knowing the starting ratios is completely unnecessary in radioactive dating. You may want to read the Talk Origins isocron FAQ to understand how it is done.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Carbon-14 isn't reliable for anything older than 10,000 years. For anything claimed older they use Uranium-Lead or some other slower decay isotope.

In fact, carbon-14 dating is reliable to about 50,000 years. If nobody else has done so, I'd like to point out here that carbon-14 dating is calibrated using other lines of evidence, such as tree ring records.

ironcates wrote:
The overwhelming evidence from geology, astronomy, biology, nuclear physics and other fields of science all pointing to an earth billions of years old has never been a problem for creationists that believe in a 6-10,000 year old earth.

FTFY.
25 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you (the op)have missed the point. This paper is attempting to explain a peak in the calibration curve which we already know about. We already know there are wriggles in the calibration from raw c14 dates to calib c14 dates. They can cause uncertainties of up to about +/- 150 years, but are usually much better. If you are trying to convince yourself that the science can be massaged to allow for short creationist timescales you are sadly deluded.

If you think c14 dates are an absolute bane perhaps you should get the idea that they are right. I realise this might change your world view but the cogitative dissonance must really hurt right now.

See http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=webinfo.html
for a good source on radio carbon dating
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Swift
United Kingdom
Ormskirk
Lancashire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I genuinely cannot understand how a person can be a creationist in the face of so much scientific evidence to the contrary. Do you just not believe all the various scientific disciplines, geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology. Etc... .??
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All it takes is Faith
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giles Pritchard
Australia
Shepparton
Victoria
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Punk Reaper wrote:
I genuinely cannot understand how a person can be a creationist in the face of so much scientific evidence to the contrary. Do you just not believe all the various scientific disciplines, geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology. Etc... .??


I have cousins who fit this category - and I really can't understand how they, in all reason, manage to square creationism with observed reality. They live in a very tight faith community that is aggressive and active about reinforcing their world view - so I'm sure that's a part of it. But I simply do not understand.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
All it takes is Faith

Also known as complete ability to deny facts in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
caradoc wrote:
Punk Reaper wrote:
I genuinely cannot understand how a person can be a creationist in the face of so much scientific evidence to the contrary. Do you just not believe all the various scientific disciplines, geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology. Etc... .??


I have cousins who fit this category - and I really can't understand how they, in all reason, manage to square creationism with observed reality. They live in a very tight faith community that is aggressive and active about reinforcing their world view - so I'm sure that's a part of it. But I simply do not understand.


The whole 'starlight' thing was what really stumped me. As a (growing up) Creationist, the idea of some kind of radiation differences/spikes causing differences in Carbon-14 dating (and, yeah, that's all they talked about - other radioisotope decay rates never really got brought up, mostly in retrospect because I think this one sounded more 'out there' and easy to stir up doubt about while "everyone knows" what Uranium is) was perfectly sufficient to cast doubt on the 'evolutionary record'.

Starlight, though...I mean, we know what the speed of light is. And we know how far away the stars are that we are seeing light from. So, from that alone, we have an absolute minimum age for the dates of particular events in the universe.

That's somewhat difficult to reconcile with the Genesis record.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
caradoc wrote:
Punk Reaper wrote:
I genuinely cannot understand how a person can be a creationist in the face of so much scientific evidence to the contrary. Do you just not believe all the various scientific disciplines, geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology. Etc... .??


I have cousins who fit this category - and I really can't understand how they, in all reason, manage to square creationism with observed reality. They live in a very tight faith community that is aggressive and active about reinforcing their world view - so I'm sure that's a part of it. But I simply do not understand.


The whole 'starlight' thing was what really stumped me. As a (growing up) Creationist, the idea of some kind of radiation differences/spikes causing differences in Carbon-14 dating (and, yeah, that's all they talked about - other radioisotope decay rates never really got brought up, mostly in retrospect because I think this one sounded more 'out there' and easy to stir up doubt about while "everyone knows" what Uranium is) was perfectly sufficient to cast doubt on the 'evolutionary record'.

Starlight, though...I mean, we know what the speed of light is. And we know how far away the stars are that we are seeing light from. So, from that alone, we have an absolute minimum age for the dates of particular events in the universe.

That's somewhat difficult to reconcile with the Genesis record.
he Earth is not the universe I think would be the answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
the Earth is not the universe I think would be the answer.


Except the (misguided) people arguing for a young earth are doing so based on a religious text that also mentions the stars, so are unlikely to accept a young earth in an ancient universe. (Nor should they, but it's the young earth bit that is wrong.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
the Earth is not the universe I think would be the answer.


Except the (misguided) people arguing for a young earth are doing so based on a religious text that also mentions the stars, so are unlikely to accept a young earth in an ancient universe. (Nor should they, but it's the young earth bit that is wrong.)
You seem to assume they would give a logical answer (and a consistent one, sentence A is literal, but sentence b is allegorical).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
perfalbion wrote:
gamesterinns wrote:
As a creationist, for whom carbon-14 levels are an absolute bane, I can't help wondering if other massive gamma ray bursts have taken place and been left unrecorded, as the article states,

“The challenge now is to establish how rare such carbon-14 spikes are, i.e. how often such radiation bursts hit the Earth.”


Holy "I'm reading this to mean what I want it to mean" Theology Man!

See, you skip the first part of the quote. The one that says the issue isn't the age of the earth or radiocarbon dating, but the potential danger to electronic equipment:

Literally the first part of the paragraph you quoted from wrote:
“But even thousands of light years away, a similar event today could cause havoc with the sensitive electronic systems that advanced societies have come to depend on,”


Further - please point to any statement in the article that casts any doubt whatsoever on the use of radiocarbon dating itself - it's a description of why there's record of the burst in tree ring data. There's nothing that says "everything that you could test using carbon-14 is affected."

I'm not a scientist and the leaps of logic inherent in your conclusions are so massive that Evel Knievel is contemplating a comeback to reclaim his title.


Holy "I'm reading this to mean what I want it to mean" Critic Man!

I don't recall stating any conclusions based on the article nor did I try to imply they were saying scientists now feel a need to completely re-evaluate radiocarbon dating - I just left it up to others to draw their own conclusions.

I admit, it does seem to me that if it's found we can expect such gamma ray bursts to occur frequently in the future, thus indicating they have indeed likely occurred frequently in the past, then radiocarbon dating could feasibly be called into question. If carbon-14 levels are understood to have varied more widely than is currently believed, I presume it would have an impact of some description on the equations used to determine dates by that particular method?

What really caught my eye in the article, though, was the dating of the event in question - dendochronology indicates it happened in 774 or 775 A.D., but written history instead points to what would seem to be a highly plausible event dated to 776 A.D. So, rather than revise the tree ring data, which only differs by a year or two, the researchers assumed the Anglo-Saxon chronicle refers to some other "non-gamma ray" event. I'm wondering why they don't go with the anectdotal evidence on this one? Or at least why they didn't claim the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dates the event incorrectly?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Carbon-14 isn't reliable for anything older than 10,000 years. For anything claimed older they use Uranium-Lead or some other slower decay isotope.


Ummmm. Nope. Carbon-14 is reliable to about 50,000 years. And then you move to any of around 20-25 different dating methods for things.

Quote:
Uranium-Lead has other issues that they can point to like, what was the starting ratio of Uranium-Lead when the rock was formed?


You have no earthly idea what you're talking about. The starting ratios don't need to be known.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gamesterinns wrote:
I don't recall stating any conclusions based on the article nor did I try to imply they were saying scientists now feel a need to completely re-evaluate radiocarbon dating - I just left it up to others to draw their own conclusions.


Manure. You raised a point and made a statement. You specifically did imply something and linked to an article that you obviously felt supported said statement. Please don't attempt sophistry, it's quite unbecoming.

Quote:
I admit, it does seem to me that if it's found we can expect such gamma ray bursts to occur frequently in the future, thus indicating they have indeed likely occurred frequently in the past, then radiocarbon dating could feasibly be called into question.


Ahhh, but you didn't mean to imply this with your post. Riiiigggghhhhhtttt.

Quote:
If carbon-14 levels are understood to have varied more widely than is currently believed, I presume it would have an impact of some description on the equations used to determine dates by that particular method?


Except that the article you point to doesn't support any of these suppositions. Nor does it even suggest them. It discusses an event that is known and why there might be a significant jump in C14 for said event.

Quote:
What really caught my eye in the article, though, was the dating of the event in question - dendochronology indicates it happened in 774 or 775 A.D., but written history instead points to what would seem to be a highly plausible event dated to 776 A.D. So, rather than revise the tree ring data, which only differs by a year or two, the researchers assumed the Anglo-Saxon chronicle refers to some other "non-gamma ray" event. I'm wondering why they don't go with the anectdotal evidence on this one? Or at least why they didn't claim the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dates the event incorrectly?


#1 - a Gamma ray burst need not be generated by a visible event.

#2 - there is no way to go back, take measurements, and say "Ah, yes, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle event did generate a large amount of gamma rays."

#3 - You're assuming that there is only one dating method in play. Which is 95%+ certain not to be the case.

#4 - If you want to know what the research said, then this little summary article isn't going to answer that question. [url="http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/08/mnras.sts378.full"]The full article[/url] would be the place to go. I'm not sufficiently versed in the science to read it and point you towards the salient portions, but read for yourself and have a ball.

But you didn't mean to imply anything from your post, so why are you bothering to act as though there might be anything there at all?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gamesterinns wrote:

I admit, it does seem to me that if it's found we can expect such gamma ray bursts to occur frequently in the future, thus indicating they have indeed likely occurred frequently in the past, then radiocarbon dating could feasibly be called into question. If carbon-14 levels are understood to have varied more widely than is currently believed, I presume it would have an impact of some description on the equations used to determine dates by that particular method?

But we have a calibration curve for C14 dating. There are uncertainties due to the shape of the curve, but the dating (calibrated by dendochronology, history and other dating techniques) is pretty good for most dates. Did you look at the link I posted?

Gamma ray bursts contribute to the explanation why the calibration curve is not the simple decay curve originally predicted but don't change the dating at all as the calibration curve is derived empirically.

Give it up. YEC is bollocks.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.